Repealing Obamacare to Preserve Civil Society

The Supreme Court decision yesterday on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare, or ACA) offered only one hope of answering social issue concerns about the sweeping law: a ruling that the ACA is both unconstitutional in part and non-severable as a whole. That is, if the Supreme Court had dispatched the entire law. Instead, the law’s individual purchasing mandate was preserved, as a tax rather than as a penalty for lawbreaking, and the ACA’s multiple threats to faith, family, and human life went unaddressed.

The good news is that these threats have not been specifically upheld either as a matter of constitutional law or as examples of wise public policy. Broadly speaking, the law weakens every institution of civil society that competes with the national government and its goals in the area of health.

It weakens parents through its many provisions that reduce their health insurance options and that provide their children with “reproductive services” that many of those parents regard as disservices. It weakens churches by directly threatening their social service outreach (whether or not they receive public funding) and denying them the civic expression of their creed. It weakens the insurance industry itself, further transforming it into a public utility with a limited range of offerings. Most importantly, it makes the national government the ultimate arbiter of what is, and is not, health itself.

The social issue concerns about Obamacare fall into three categories:

A cornucopia of conscience killers. The first of these is the preventive services mandate, which requires religious institutions (with the exception of an extremely narrow class of church entities) to facilitate the purchase of “services” they regard as morally objectionable. These services include sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraceptives. Yesterday’s ruling did not affect this “mandate junior,” and two dozen lawsuits against it are still pending in federal court. The mandate could (and should) still be found an unconstitutional infringement on the free exercise rights of religious institutions, including church hospitals, schools, and other charities.

A confluence of abortion funding streams. Thelargest of these is thepremium tax credit (PTC), which will be the means to subsidize individuals and families enrolling in state health insurance exchanges even now being set up under Obamacare. The new PTC can finance plans that include elective abortion. The value of the subsidy far outstrips the cost to the insured for elective abortion coverage. The average federal premium subsidy will be $6,460 per person; the presumably “segregated” abortion premium will be as little as $1 per month. The PTC will facilitate the purchase of health care plans that include elective abortion for millions of Americans who did not have such coverage before. The federally run (by the Office of Personnel Management) multi-state plans set up under Section 1334 of the ACA will proceed—each state must offer at least two plans, and only one of them must not fund abortion. The other OPM-managed plans almost certainly will fund elective abortion, and government’s thumb could be on the scale of these plans, making them a preferred option. The elective abortion plans could be made much cheaper, for example, than the “pro-life plan,” perhaps on the very same theory that other “preventive services” reduce plan costs and premiums.

A plethora ofprograms that prefer “comprehensive” services over abstinencealternatives. These include the first-ever federal authorization of school-based clinics and Personal Responsibility Education (PRE) grants. These programs will likely channel even more federal funds to entities that promote abortion and reduce parental involvement. The PRE program provides $75 million per year for grants to help states reduce pregnancies and births to teenagers. Unlike the 1996 welfare reform, however, PRE does not incentivize states to reach these goals without increasing their abortion rates.

On the positive side, the ACA permits the states to exclude private plans that offer elective abortion from their state-run exchanges, and this provision is unaffected by yesterday’s ruling. As of June 1, 17 states have taken advantage of this provision. But note that this is only one-half the number of states that have historically limited abortion funding in their health programs for the poor. ACA has required them to enact new laws to preserve the status quo as public subsidies go up the income scale. Finally, it is by no means clear whether OPM’s multi-state plans, which cannot by law be excluded from the exchanges, will be subject to the states’ exchange rules on abortion.

These and other provisions of Obamacare are not nettlesome features of an otherwise good law. They are part and parcel of a massive and deliberate shift of authority away from localities, businesses, families, and churches—all of civil society—toward an all-knowing health authority based in sprawling federal bureaus. The stakes in the fight to challenge Obamacare legally, and ultimately repeal it, remain extremely high.

Charles A. "Chuck" Donovan is the president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute. He served as legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee more than three decades ago, worked as a writer for President Reagan, helped to lead the Family Research Council for nearly two decades and most recently has been senior research fellow in Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

Where does it show authorization in the constitution? Oh that's right it's not our constitution, but that of the private federal corporation. Where is it authorized there? Is it all just subterfuge to make everyone want to vote for RomObama? ..It makes little sense to vote, what have you got choice wise? ..The one's who did it to you last time, the appearant lesser of two evils. Does your vote really count, all are controled by big money.

The only disappointing thing about the Affordable Care Act is that it has recieved such a negative response from neo-conservatives. The same group who crafted the legislation has now turned on it for the perpose of winning an election. What's more disappointing is the Republcian establishment's ability to use social issues, one small portion of a much larger bill that could be repealed separately, to cloud the larger truth that there is nothing truly wrong with the law they crafted. Mark my words, neo-conservatives will end up on the wrong side of history, and the republican party will move to towards the center, not toward the Tea Party, to survive.

These words from the White House Press Secretary stating the Administrations interpretation of this law will stand as galvanizing proof that “We the People” have a legitimate "Opt Out" weapon to wield against this tyranny. The good news is that we do not have to masquerade as Native Indians in order to wield it.

"IT'S A PENALTY, BECAUSE YOU HAVE A CHOICE. You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right?" Carney said. It’s clear that Mr. Carney might have been better served if he had first read the U.S. Tax Code before making such an absurd statement?

The fact is; there are a total of 3398 Assessable Penalties regarding taxes. 435 of those were created under the Congresses Constitutional power to create taxes, and can be found under title 26 of the US Code. The remaining 2,963 were created by the IRS as allowed by the Administrative Procedure Act Title 5 – United States Code – Chapter 5, sections 511-599. These are found in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

the reform to the repeal makes exceptional considerations to people over 55. as far as no jobs and in the pit, alot of it has to do with the controls of government abuse counterproductive to the free market businesses seen only in the work of democrats. the obstacle is government overreach. remove government interference and you have economic job growth, self governed with accountability.
Less government corruption, inefficiencies and expense, more money to generate throughout the economy and more balanced revenue in government…

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times? Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

Email address

Ever feel like the only difference between the New York Times and Washington Post is the name? We do. Try the Morning Bell and get the day’s most important news and commentary from a team committed to the truth in formats that respect your time…and your intelligence.